—–

Inevitably, January is filled with predictions and resolutions. We ponder the innovations and evolutions that may unfold in the technologies we use, and consider the issues we want to tackle in our work and communities.

Me? I’m focused on data. This year will, I hope, be the year of data. I see more organizations looking for ways to be data-driven in decision making, communications, campaigning, and marketing, and I see a growing interest in and understanding of the value in sharing data. The more we share our data with each other inside and outside of our organizations, the more data-driven we can be in our work collectively.

If you’ve been waiting for an invitation to dive into data, this is it. You are cordially invited to start tracking, measuring, evaluating, and sharing! Here are a few ways to get started:

Data for Promotion

Many organizations use selected statistics, data, or other information in press releases and calls to action, but we may not look at those numbers or statistics as stories that compel us to share, respond, and take action. There are ways, however, to use data to tell a more active story. Here’s an infographic that Points of Light shared during the ramp up to its 2012 Martin Luther King, Jr. Day service events. Looking at the cumulative impact of volunteers is really powerful when it’s presented in this way:

Data for Engagement

Using real-time tools to engage people through data can help increase both the time people spend on your site and the amount of information you can convey quickly. Mapping is one of the most-used and easily recognizable options. It’s easy to see and understand a map right away (especially using something like Google Maps, which most people have seen before or even used themselves). One great example is the wayEpic Change uses a map as the main interface for its To Mama With Love campaign.

The To Mama With Love site encourages visitors, without any written instructions, to click locations on the map, read through the user-created word, photo, and video dedications to moms (or, “heartspaces”), and engage with others’ stories by sharing or donating.

Data for Reporting

Organizations are also sharing data in many ways. Some if it is visual, such as in this terrific infographic that illustrates trends for where we are giving our time and money:

This year, I would love to see nonprofit organizations, service agencies, and local groups working together to share their data in the effort to more accurately map our collective impact and to identify new opportunities for partnership and collaboration. Imagine if you could see a map of hunger in your city that included a broader set of data than what Share Our Strength, Feeding America, or your local food bank has collected. What if the map included information from service providers, schools, and other local organizations? You would get a clearer picture of the issues causing hunger in your community—and be that much clearer about how to tackle the problem. Maps can reveal things such duplicated efforts and can help us understand where to invest. I would love to see that map! And I would love to help.

What are you looking to do this year with your data? What are you working on now? I would love to see or hear about any examples you already have.

The internet is not new. The last few years, though, have been dramatically impacted by the real-time web. The real-time web is a paradigm based on pushing information to users as soon as it’s available, instead of requiring that they or their software check a source periodically for updates. Social media is one of the most tangible examples of the real time web. 

We want to share while we are doing and have people respond immediately. Why be in just one place when we can be in many? That might look like sharing a picture from a concert, while you are still at the concert. It could be checking in with people on a location-based social network. And so on. This focus on collective participation and 24/7 connectivity has impacted more than just our social lives.

In 2009, for example, two trapped girls in Australia chose to post to facebook for help rather than dialing emergency numbers directly. A similar example is that of an Atlanta city councilman who chose to post a message to Twitter asking for a medic to respond to an unconscious woman on the street rather than to dial 911 when his mobile phone battery was very low.

The real-time web has also revolutionized the way we support local communities in disaster. Ushahidi, an open source project originally deployed in Kenya to report post-election violence has since been downloaded and deployed for many other events and disasters, including Haiti, Chile, and Japan. Philanthropy has been able to move into the real time web, too.

Another great example is Epic Change. Their Tweetsgiving campaigns were fundraisers benefiting Mama Lucy’s school in Tanzania and connected the students to their supporters through Twitter. Donors could communicate with the students, and they thanked participants directly – building lasting relationships. Their To Mama With Love campaign also leveraged the power of our social ties online through “heartspaces” people could create with embeded video and photos, and then share with social media, donate, etc.

Impacts to Society

What does all this really mean for us now? I see three pillars of our real-time society emerging:

1.People believe in the internet. They don’t necessarily think they need an organization in order to make an impact. So, for an organization to really win over supporters, they need to do a lot more today than they ever have to earn their trust. Part of believing in the internet means that you know you can (or believe you should be able to) find out historical, operational, and financial information on the organizations or people you might support.

2.People believe in their contributions. Even if it is just $10, they really believe that it is enough. Maybe it isn’t even money, but feedback or advice, maybe an introduction or volunteer time. People want to be recognized for contributing anywhere along the spectrum.

3.People believe you should listen to them. Whether that “you” is the government, business, public services, other community members, or even philanthropists. The internet is an endless stage and platform, and when we are up there speaking, we expect you are all listening.

Impacts to Philanthropy

For any investors or philanthropists, I’ve probably just reinforced any fear you had about the internet with those three points. But what does all this mean for philanthropy?

1.We can’t only invest in new. There have to be other criteria for defining and evaluating innovation. You may laugh, but I’ve reviewed grantmakers and government funds where that was actually the only criteria, other than going through the process of filling out the application form. For many start ups and even nonprofit groups doing something truly innovative, they totally blow it the first time around. A mulligan fund for projects that completely fail, but pay attention to what went wrong and how to do it right this time around could be the difference between many more failed attempts over years and jumping to a solution today.

2.We can’t only invest in a product. Instead, we should put the problems first and invest in a project. For many developers, including many of the projects we funded through NetSquared Challenges, the ultimate tool or application that was created was vastly different than the one they originally thought of or thought would work. But we invested in the project of trying things out and iterating towards a solution.

3.We can’t focus just on money. Especially as philanthropists, whether it is you or your organization, you have so much to offer beyond money. For many project teams I’ve worked with, having an endorsement actually took them further than having a chunk of change. Maybe it’s an introduction or a recommendation, or just a place to sit and work and have meetings.

What do you have to share? What does your real-time philanthropy or social impact look like?

[Image credit: Philanthropy and Social Media whitepaper]

Education is probably the area where we have failed to innovate the most. This morning we talked about creating clusters of innovation, bringing in various communities, etc. But before we got there, we talked abit about the problem. I want to frame first the opportunity: we often talk about the competitiveness frame in education, that the US used to be number one, and now we are “falling behind.” The trust is that other countries are passing us by.

The good news is that the myth that you can’t make systemic change quickly is just that, a myth. We are seeing the proof in other countries. The countries who are out performing us now are doing what we did before, but better. They do school, the way we do school; they just do it better. People haven’t reinvented school yet. The reality is that it is going to happen, because it has to happen. It has to happen outside this country because so many countries realized that education is the way to economic prosperity. They can’t build the schools and they can’t train the teachers fast enough to replicate our model. They are going to look for innovation solutions.

Here in the US we have had the luxuary of assuming education spending would go up every year, until we hit our limits. And we’ve realized we have to find new and better ways of doing things. And we don’t need to do it for some of our children, but for all of them. Individuals needs to have real opportunity. Our competitiveness as a nation allows us to bring in people to the knowledge economy.

We have to reinvet what we have been doing because we have to do more with at least the same resources if not less. So how do you do that?

You are in the business every day of figuring out how to have people engage, have fun, and build skills – change their behaviors through games. That’s teaching. Fundamentally that’s what teaching should be. Young people should enjoy the educational process. They should want to achieve not just to get a good grade but because they feel the gut feeling of winning.

We have to figure out how we build things that are dramatically better than the status quo and how we take them to scale. That’s innovation.

Discussion

What do you mean about innovation and improvement with education?

I think about innovation and the work about innovation in education in two ways: first, if you have something that is significantly better than the status quo and you are doing it with a few kids, that’s an invention. If you have something that everyone is doing but it isn’t really working, that isn’t great either. It’s where they come together.

What inititiaves are availabiel for funding?

There’s the Dept of Ed and the programs we run, but we are working to align resources across the administration from us to NASA and the Dept of Defense. For example, we just closed an RFP to solicit proposals to build a game for kids k-3 to better understand STEM.

The fact that many people do not understand basic science harms public discourse and makes them rely on ideologies. Helping people understand science will help us as a country. We want to stop wasting the great talent we have and keep people’s interest in science and math going.

What evidence do we need to influence politicians that games can help extend learning of science beyond schools?

There used to be a focus on setting high levels for evidence in evidenced based policy making. But we are seeing that we need to move more things into the category of moderate to strong, not just very strong, evidence. The reality is, though, that it isn’t how decisions are often made. People and policy is often first influenced by compelling stories.

Some have said that coming decades will bring a game layer to the internet. What are your thoughts?

I think that we have a lot to learn about where gamifying is most helpful, but we are so far from the saturation point that we should push ahead with full speed so we can evaluate what works and what doesn’t and make adjustments. I have no future in being a futurist, but I will say that genie is out of the bottle for people being able to be developers. The long tail is very real. I think the cross section of everyone getting into the development and gaming means we will need to evaluate what is quality and what isn’t.

How do you evaluate organizations that you invest in that develop games to support learning?

We currently don’t have any programs that are games focused. We have games that make it into a search for something that helps a kind of learning, etc. I’m now in the process of trying to build requirements that let many different people apply to participate. Scaleability, cost-effectiveness, capacity, etc. So you can judge any kind of organization and the gaming piece is just how well it fits in.

Big initiatives to big corporations – what can small groups do?

Ready to learn, prior to this year, had 3 or 4 applicants. This year, it had 30. Many of them are small development shops in partnership with small public media stations, etc. Among the top winners there were a couple that were not big players. With that program, the goal is to get syndicated but the opportunity is there for anyone.

For I3, you do have to be in partnership with a school, etc. but anyone can be that other partner. And we do see independent and small groups winning those funds.

What do you think of the 20 Under 20 Fellowship?

I think it’s cool but I don’t know what it proves. You read the bios and you see this really incredible people, but you’ve taken them out of college track and give them resources to see if they can still succeed. I’m not sure that proves a point. The more interesting thing for me is if he was to take a set of folks who had just gotten into community college and see what kind of opportunities it could create for them.

Innovation requires risk and failure, how might we address the bifurcation with that and politic’s focus on safety?

When I leave I will write a book that is called the 100 Things We Do to Make Government Worse. We create systems to mitigate all risk. But what that means is that you’ve created a space where you’re unlikely to fail and you’ve also capped the upside opportunity for dramatic improvement, but youv’e also taken the system and created something that doesn’t let professionals exercise judgement.  When you systematize these things they become formulaic. That said, there are structures within government that can handle risk. And it’s in that context that the expenditures are justified with the upsides. We need more of that so we can attract the kinds of people and resources we need for education that we have for war (ie DARPA).

How can you pursue innovation with games when teachers have the kinds of tests and classroom requirements now?

There’s a myth that the best way to get higher test scores is to do more standard practice on those subjects. Spending more time on the same old thing hasn’t shown to make that impact. When have you ever gone to a great school, not a good school, that wasn’t engaging kids in the school in interesting and well-rounded ways? If in fact we are striving for greatness, we need to get passed that myth and that opens up the door for gaming and more. The current environment is ripe for this to happen. There’s still going to be assessments but hopefully better models. And we can broaden the conversation to talk about having lots of tools to get there. And with limited resources, we will have to find ways to keep kids engaged in school when they aren’t there. Things that can connect home and school with the learning objects are really needed.

Turns out that people on disability insurance who go to college and get degrees, half of them don’t go to work – largely because of expectations. Have you considered using games to change expectations?

The reality is, as a Dept, we have an underdeveloped focus on motivation, confidence, expectation, etc. We don’t spend a lot of resource or research on. Therefore, a sub-portion of the nalsted is a smaller portion of nothing. Where we see the opportunity is to leverage games as a way to reach a broader spectrum of things beyond just the education. I think we will see a lot more of it.

Learning outside the classroom, what’s your opinion of games that support tangential learning?

I can’t give you an answer in my job, but I can as a dad: I love it. I had one of the best educational moments with my son after watching Fight Science this passed weekend when they talked about the blow dart. I think we need to be smart about wrapping things around the things they really want to learn about, and then bridge that to where they can apply it. The broadest challenge we face is that we ask teachers to do something incredible every day and we give them very little to do it – we need to provide teachers the tools they need so that all of them are as great as the greatest teacher and games can play an incredible part in that.

Amy Sample Ward opens My Charity Connects 2011 from SiG @ MaRS on Vimeo.

I started the keynote by reading a poem by Deanna Zandt, a friend and the author of Share This! You can read her poem, Untitled, here.

What is a movement?

Let’s start at the most fundamental place for this conversation. What is a movement? How many people hear that word and think it is just as generic as the word community? Or engagement? Exactly. As much as we intend to have real meaning in these words, we use them so often and when talking about such varying levels of similar things that we dilute our own meaning.

For this conversation, and those to have over the course of the next two days together at least, let’s work from the place that a movement is larger than coalitions. It’s deeper than engagement, and longer than campaigns. A movement is inherently counter to branding and needs more than a few inspired individuals.

What that translates to is that a movement is built on collaboration, incorporates co-design between individuals and organizations, and remains focused, even during an event or campaign, on lasting, real impact. To that end, siloed brands are replaced by unifying goals that rally more than select individuals but entire communities.

In the most simple terms, a movement is when organizations work with, and not for, the community. We need to let go of the idea that we are serving our constituents, and recognize the ways we could be working together to change their lives, their neighborhoods, and beyond. We we use the “with” instead of the “for” perspective, we are able to see skills and contributions the community can make, opportunities for growth outside of your programs or your walls; we are able to see that we are part of a solution and not responsible for engineering the entire fix. That’s when the movement building can begin.

What’s our role?

If organizations are a part of the solution, a part of the process, what does that role really look like?

Instead of asking what’s our role, let’s look at what the opportunity is. Outside of our organizations, we have government institutions, and service providers. We have community groups, schools, local leaders and people at every age, interest, and skill level. All those people and groups have just as many different goals, small and large. Your organization has goals, too. And it is completely okay, required even, that all those goals are different to some degree. But, they really do intersect. Some of the goals your organizations has for the community and the future are shared by that same community and other groups. Focusing on those areas where your goals overlap enables you to create a common ground, share a purpose; and that’s where you can build a movement.

I like to think of it this way: Organizations may have the research or data, the capacity and staff, to identify problems and opportunities, to build messages, calls to action and campaigns. But, alone, the organization can’t make the change. The community, partners, government, are all necessary for really making a change. So, organizations need to let the community drive. That doesn’t mean organizations sit back, relinquish all responsibility and control, and wait for the community to take action. Quite the opposite. The organizations get to do everything BUT drive: you are the vehicle, the gas, the map, the snacks even! But if the community isn’t in the driver’s seat, you won’t have the engagement or power to get anywhere alone.

What does it look like?

Obviously, we can all picture a car. But, that isn’t exactly what it looks like when we go back to our offices. How does movement building really look? Before exploring the questions around limitations and needs, I want to share a couple examples of things happening right now to remind us that even though it will take a lot of work, and honestly a good bit of time, that we are already moving.

350.org

Have people heard of 350.org before? Have you heard the number 350 parts per million? 350.org has had an interesting history, but one that shows us just what that car really looks like: as climate policy, disasters and environmental debates began building a number of years ago, 350ppm was used a tag on blog posts, on photos, as a tracking and signposting mechanism for people following and contributing to the unfolding conversation to find each other and each other’s content online. As the issues became more public and more people started looking for others and taking action, it was necessary for an organization to form that could provide some of the infrastructure and administration of the community and it’s work.

But, the organization remained community driven. Regional and local leaders were supported and given the opportunity to shine. Actions and messages were contextualized based on the issues and discussions taking place at both the global and local level. Campaigns were designed with the community and required the community’s engagement to implement. And everything was shareable, collaborative, contagious.

On the organizational side of things, the staff at 350 continued to explore ways to grow and build momentum that was larger than just their organization or reach. For example, they partnered with groups like Focus the Nation and 1Sky so that they could share a backend database ensuring that they were then able to share calls to action and garner far more numbers together than as competitors. In 2009, 350, working in tandem with communities around the world and partner organizations aligned on the shared goal of creating a global movement to solve the climate crisis, ignited the largest collective action that has ever been taken around the world with their 10/10/10 Day of Action. A year later, in 2010, it was even bigger.

And then something exciting happened. 1Sky and 350 merged. Instead of fundraising separately, activating communities separately, connecting with legislators separately, the organizations recognized a unique opportunity they had to come together.

They didn’t make too much of the merger, as there’s lots of work to do. But they were transparent, and excited about all the potential the merger opened up.

BlueGreen Alliance

Just last week, another exciting merger was announced with BlueGreen Alliance and Apollo Alliance. I live now in New York, but before moving there in the autumn, I was based in London for a few years. The landscape has changed dramatically for the nonprofit, charity, and voluntary sector in the UK and I heard people across the country raise the question many times and with many different intentions, asking if there were simply “too many” organizations. With the budget issues that have faced the world, it’s a question people in many sectors, including in our own, have raised.

I’m not sharing these examples of mergers as a way of saying I believe there are too many organizations. Instead, they are examples of what it looks like when we double down on our focus to make change. And, just as David Foster shared in the merger announcement, building a movement will require partnerships and risks.

ACE

But movement building doesn’t only look like large organizations merging. Movement building also requires that focus on real action at the nexus of our collective goals. The Alliance for Climate Education is a great example of that. They provide many calls to action, and showcase lots of examples of how the youth they work with and reach can get involved wherever they are. But they also recognize they won’t build a movement by asking teenagers to change light bulbs in their homes. They have to let the community drive. So they provide the examples and maps, but they let the youth pick and pledge whatever it is they want to do to make a difference. And over 10,000 youth later, they have the start of a movement in the next generation, inspiring them and supporting them in staying on course for the future they want.

Cause-First

When it comes to the 350 network, the branding is really the branding of the community, long before any organization had formed to support it. 350ppm was the rallying point and as such remains so today. Just like 350 ppm, there are tremendous opportunities for starting and growing movements by focusing on the singular action. This is a facebook page where many organizations across the environment, climate and animal welfare sectors came together to share news, updates, action alerts, and much more after the BP Oil Spill. But, you’ll see it’s focused on action – there’s a petition built into the page and the page doesn’t have an organization’s name and it doesn’t even have anything about BP in the name.

What’s holding us back?

I haven’t said anything revolutionary, and I haven’t said anything new. But, most of us aren’t building movements. Why? There are a number of things holding us back. I want to touch on just a few of them.

Slacktivism

Who’s heard the term ‘slacktivism’? Who’s read a blog post about it? Who’s read a tweet about it? Okay. Who’s changed their organization’s online communications because of it?

I very rarely encounter individuals complaining of slacktivism. But organizations? Gosh, it’s every day. And, to use a crude expression from the playground: whoever smelt, it dealt it. Actions, whether you consider them passive, inspiring, or anywhere in between, are coming from someone. And that person or entity putting out the call, has a tremendous amount of power. If you ask people to like your facebook page, and they respond, what they are saying isn’t that all they ever want to do is like your page. They are saying, just like in Deanna’s poem I started with: we’re here, we’re listening, call us to real action.

Organizations need to take responsibility for their role in creating and sustaining slacktivism. Yes we have an accessible and attention span limited world thanks in great deal to the internet. And yes, individuals have a stake in the emergence and proliferation of slacktivism. But I’m not talking to random individuals. I’m talking to organization that have inspiring stories, are doing incredibly important work, and have very real opportunities for the community to join in action. If it was a 12-step program to get over slacktivism, we’d be here to embrace the first step: admitting we have a problem and that it is a problem we can own and change.

Metrics

How do we move away from slacktivism? Just like the larger principle supporting movement building, we need to focus on action. Look first at your organizational metrics. What do you measure every day, week, month, year? What do you point to when funders, donors, board members and the community ask if you are making a difference? How do you evaluate your programs and services? Those metrics and accompanying goals are the best resources for identifying the focus and the calls to action for your campaigns and even daily communications.

Remember the examples from before? Whether it was 350 or ACE, or a group like Epic Change and their annual To Mama With Love projects. To Mama With Love is an online fundraising effort focused on supporting women entrepreneurs caring for and supporting communities of youth around the world. The event happens in the week leading up to Mother’s Day and provides a platform where anyone can build a heartspace with text, photos and videos to show their love for their mother, an important woman in their life, or even people that inspire them. It is less about the number of people to retweet or like or blog. What is it about? Helping the women receiving the funds. They don’t focus on a dollar number, they focus on the women’s stories and communication all that they wish they could do. The more is raised, the more impact they can make. There’s no limit to either. Instead of saying in the middle of the campaign “we need $X”, they share an interview with one of the beneficiaries, or invite people to connect directly via twitter with children in Tanzania who attend the school funded through the campaign. It instantly becomes less about numbers and more about impact. And that’s hard to ignore.

Focus

Epic Change can’t do it alone, and neither can we. Remember the car? We have to get the community into that driver’s seat. But, we have to train them! Leadership development is incredibly important for our movements to build and grow and succeed.

We have to train our communities to drive with us. It isn’t exactly in our nature as an organization, but it is key to the ethos of a movement builder. One way to start is to encourage interaction without you. If you’re making connections and supporting conversations across the network, you’re helping the community create strong ties that will not require your time and energy to maintain. This may mean making introductions, starting conversations, asking for help, providing leadership opportunities that aren’t on staff. Remember the action-focused facebook page? That was a place where many organizations and groups could come together, but so could individuals – equally.

Striving to be replaced also means rewarding and spotlighting the leaders as they emerge. Positive reinforcement is one of the best leadership development practices you can build into your movement, whether it’s online or offline, on a facebook page, newsletter, annual fundraiser or neighborhood events. Giving public recognition for action and leadership empowers more action and more leadership – both from those in the spotlight and those that will come next. You want to be weary of hero worship in a movement, but that’s addressed by constantly changing out the spotlight – shining a light on people, partners, organizations and policy makers, actions local and global. The more people that you can showcase as symbols of the movement, the more diverse and tangible your movement becomes.

Lastly, in order to train the community to drive, you have to share your tools. You can model behavior all you want but if no one can tell how to actually take action, or how to really get the work done, there’s no way they can jump in and help step the movement forward. Think of when you learned to drive – you’d seen a car before, your parent or friend had told you what the various nobs and levers did. You can’t expect communities to share your goal and vision and automatically know how to act on your behalf in their villages and cities around the world. It doesn’t matter if you have a billion friends on facebook – what matters is how many know how to drive and are part of making change.

Difference

Another barrier is the idea that we are all so different. I have heard before: we are an organization working in the schools in a very urban community, so I can’t learn from or build on the work from the rural school programs because it is just so different here. I agree that every organization, city, region, and culture have differences that make us unique. And I’m glad we do. But when it comes to creating movements for the future, we can’t limit the places where we take inspiration or we limit the options for collaborators and innovation.

Like I said at the beginning, we all have a different set of goals, but ultimately there are very real intersections. Those are the areas where we can operate larger than ourselves, move from one-time efforts to long-term impact. It’s in that intersection we have the power to start a movement.

Fear

Our fear should not be of losing branding, not having “control” of the conversation, or having someone post a negative comment on our blog or facebook wall; but only in not changing the world, right?

As an example, let’s think about a community library. I’ve worked with them on various programs and strategies and something I’ve heard many times is: If we promote our space, everyone will try to come here; if we promote our services, everyone will try to use them. Instead of that fear that there will be too many people, too much interest, that library – or, really, that organization, service provider, government agency – is losing the opportunity to catalyze change and ignite a movement with just the existing infrastructure and capacity that’s in place.

Just as we need to take this as step 1 in our process of moving beyond slacktivism, we also need to be fearless. We cannot be scared that if we ask people to take action, instead of simply like our page, that they won’t do it. Instead, we need to train them to drive, or give them the tools to actually respond to our call to action, and then spotlight the leaders and impact they create when they do respond to our call.

What do we need?

I know that we have the energy and will and power to build real movements. But, we are still in need of some changes and important ingredients.

Culture

Those of us in this room today could be excited, inspired to support a community-driven approach in your organization. Maybe you’re even in a leadership position already and ready to start reaching out to potential partners with a larger offer than you were thinking of before. But for any change to happen in the way we operate now, and for movements really to form, we need a culture that will support it. And I don’t mean a public culture, but the mindset of our organizations and boards, and in our sector.

We need to be listening for action. Not just monitoring twitter or tracking who the influential reporters and bloggers are that discuss our programs or issues. But listening to the community, to the news, to the larger conversation on and offline and identifying where the opportunities are. We have the very fun chance to put pieces together and connect dots that others aren’t seeing. But we need to be sure we create a culture within our organizations where we can do that kind of listening and exploring.

We also need to support a culture of collaboration in our actions, not just our words. When we are focused on impact, we are able to see potential collaborations we may have missed before when we looked only at our programs or services. Maybe you’re a homeless shelter, and you want to partner with a shelter on the other side of town to better track and understand the community experiencing homelessness in your city. But when you look at it from the goal of ending homelessness, you see partnerships with those other shelters, as well as the job training centers, the food bank, and even the library.

Lastly, we need to increase our capacity for change. If we have our staffs listening and engaging with the community but don’t allow for our programs, services, or direction to change in response and in tandem with the community, we might as well not even be listening to them. And that doesn’t just go for organizations. Just as David Foster said, if we don’t create the capacity as a sector and as communities to change the way we operate, we won’t ever change the way we make change.

Tools

Our toolboxes are filled with some of our favorite tools and lots of toys we have never even tried before. But there are very few technology resources at our disposal today that are working with the organizations and communities that use them to ensure they are building to our needs. If we want to build movements, we need our infrastructure and applications to change the way they function as a tool and the way they operate as organizations. But they don’t have the real incentive to change until we ask for it. As organizations that collectively invest billions every year in our technology infrastructure, think of the power we could have if we collectively asked for, or pledged only to invest in, a database that supported the kinds of functions and tracking we needed? What about a fundraising tool?

Roles

Just as Epic Change can’t support entrepreneurs all on their own, nor can we assume we can make these changes by ourselves. We need organizations, like 350.org and 1Sky to lead by merging. We also need other organizations to lead by teaching us how to communicate, others to lead by creating models of analysis and measurement, and so on. There are many roles to cast and one isn’t necessarily more important than the other. What is important is the recognition that together those roles, those actions at the highest level, will help set in motion the opportunity for organizations and people to join us.

Change

If there was only one thing that we needed above all those other pieces, it would be for us to start the next chapter. We can plan, we can strategize, we can justify moving slowly. But we can also just turn the page, and dive in to what’s ahead. Some call it a paradigm shift, others look at it as the next generation of social impact. Regardless of how you define what’s next, there’s no debating it’s next.

Start today.

My father has this saying he uses whenever the rest of us would have our coast on and be standing at the door ready to leave, “if you’re waiting on me, you’re wasting your time.” That’s when he’d jump in front of us and race us to the car. It’s the same feeling we have right now. If we are waiting on another organization to take action first, we are wasting our time. There are organizations acting. And there will be organizations that act after you. But it’s time to start.

The sessions today and tomorrow will cover all kinds of ways you can start taking action and making change. But, I don’t want to close without giving some examples right now. You know, while we’re on the subject…

• Ask for help. Ask your community, your partners, your funders, your friends. Say you want to build a movement, and you want their help.
• Really listen to what your community and the organizations around you are saying – find the common goals where you can build on each other’s momentum.
• Trust more. Trust that if you asked for help, people would respond. Trust that if you called for real action, people would act. Trust that you can build a movement.
• Stop filing and attaching and saving and start sharing. Post your data, share ideas that aren’t fully formed, discuss something by asking questions first.
• Let go of some of the pressure you put on yourself and try following some times. It can be the buoy that helps create new partners and builds bridges.
• And ask for help. I have to say this twice, because people just don’t want to do it. But it’s good for you.

What should we stop doing?

Register: If you will be at NCVS or are near New Orleans on Monday, June 6th, be sure to register to join the conversation! (Limited seats are left.)

Share: Whether you will be there in person or not, we need you to be part of this important conversation! All of us are impacted by our own service and the participation of communities around us. Many of us work in nonprofits and civic service organizations or groups already.

Scott and Brian created a Google form that challenges you to offer as many ideas as you care – as long as they are less than 100 words. You can submit as many ideas as you like – there isn’t one answer, or even one right answer, to this challenge. But we won’t find the right steps to take without the input and insight from the community. Share your ideas in the Idea Throwdown!

Feel free to share your ideas and suggestions here, too, to get the conversation started early!

Thanks again to Stephanie, Shannon and Paul for inviting me to be part of the conference and putting on such a valuable opportunity for the community!

The Evolution of NPTech: Where we came from, and [maybe] where we’re going

To talk about the evolution of nonprofit technology we really need to pick a place to start, because the beginning could be anywhere. For this conversation, we are going to start with the frame of the analog paradigm and move forward from there. For perspective, I imagine you immediately ask where are we on this roadmap right now: We are in the social space. And in each of these we will talk a bit about tools, tactics and strategies. And we will also get to start talking about the options for what’s next, or as I refer to it, a more holistic paradigm. So let’s dive in!

Analog Paradigm

In the analog way of working, we have some really beautiful pieces. We also have a lot of moving parts, a lot of maintenance, and a lot of (or perhaps, too many) options. We don’t, though, have a lot of efficiency or shared information. In our analog world we are too focused on processes that aren’t scaleable or shareable – meaning we have a lot of meetings, we write things down on paper, and when someone that wasn’t in our meeting or isn’t in our town needs to collaborate with us, we have to invest in catching them up and recreating the work we have already done.

Analog Tools

What this means for tools, specifically, is that we don’t actually like technology. The tools in an analog world fulfilled a specific function but did not influence our planning or programs. We thought about technology as something that took time, required a lot of maintenance and work, and was usually best kept confined to as few staff members as possible.  Technology in the analog period was usually defined only as hardware or software, it looked like desktop computers and a server room, and it got as much attention from the organization as a whole as the employee handbook.

Analog Tactics

As for tactics, well, we mostly relied on “proven” or “successful” efforts; lessons learned from other organizations working in an analog paradigm like government, unions, and churches. We sought out case studies or examples that reinforced much of how we already operated. We also approached best practices from a blind perspective that if it worked for someone else, it would work for us. Part of what defined our work in the analog period was the lack of nuance or specificity that will come into play later. For example, knowing that a certain message or call to action, or even type of service, worked for one organization in one community translated to other organizations as a packaged up and ready to repeat solution.

Analog Strategies

In the analog paradigm, our strategies did not include technology. We had simple goals, and defined our metrics only as they related to grant deliverables or obvious data, like: we will launch programs in 3 schools, or we will feed 500 families. Technology was not something we considered as a strategic option or as something that could support our programmatic strategies; technology meant simply “IT” and was left to those with IT in their title.

Digital Paradigm

Obviously, when characterized in such simple terms like these, it’s obvious where the analog approach limits us and our work. But, lest we repeat history if we think the digital paradigm will solve things!

After the Internet became more than an online super highway crowded with signposts, we moved into a much more fast-paced and interesting period: the digital paradigm. In many ways, we just reversed the analog approach, holding too tightly to digital technologies, applications, and online communication options. Instead of leaving technology out of our strategies, it became the strategy.

Digital Tools

In the digital period, the changing landscape of “tools,” meant that many of us were diagnosed with shiny object syndrome. There were so many new platforms and applications that provided tools for everything from communications to fundraising, outreach to development, and much more. But, the tools were emerging so quickly that many didn’t know how to approach them, there weren’t any policies in place; so, the Internet, except for the long-standing signposts, were viewed as toys or distractions and often banned from the workplace. Our focus on new media in the digital period also meant that we started to forget about the technology tools we already had in our organization: the hardware, software, databases, servers. We even forgot about our own website at times. The realization that another organization was using a tool, seeing another group’s profile on any given platform, or hearing a colleague at another organization mention something we hadn’t heard before were all causes enough to compel us to register, download, or log in.

Digital Tactics

With an over inflated focus on technology tools in the digital period, tactics and strategies lost much of their distinctions. A tactic is using a tool for a specific purpose. Well, during the digital period we viewed the use of a tool for a given or sometimes un-defined purpose as a self-contained strategy. All we needed to say was I heard they were using facebook; or my son has a YouTube account so I’ll have him set up ours. Much of our use of various platforms and specific applications was exploratory, understandably. But, it was without much of the real documentation needed to help others – whether in our organization or not – navigate similar areas. We didn’t even really have the language to use to create documentation, or, at least we didn’t think we did. We assumed the digital space was all new. We thought that there would need to be new tactics for making impact and new calls to action. And, most detrimentally, we thought those tactics would be defined by the technology itself.

Digital Strategies

One strategy that emerged as a popular trend during the digital period was the “ask for forgiveness, not permission” approach. Staff felt that often the only way to try new tools, engage with the public who were already adopting and investing in online platforms, and stay on top of the fast-moving digital space was to go around rules or organizational policies. If facebook was blocked, then start working on facebook at home. If you could provide enough evidence that it was worthwhile, then organizations would relax policies to allow for just those adventurous enough to circumvent the rules to now be allowed to use the tools. We went from technology belonging to the IT staff, to new media belonging to the young intern, web savvy communications officer, and so on.

And when our attempts at engaging communities online or creating profiles on various new media platforms didn’t work the way we wanted, we excused that failure with newness. The digital period converted many whole hearted believers, but it also made many others even more worried about our programs, services and grant deliverables. And after a while, the polarized views of whether our digital focus was working or not meant something had to give.

Social Paradigm

And something did give. We realized that as much as our analog view held us back from integrating technology into our strategies, so did we also limit our impact by putting technology first. We had experienced a digital land-grab; putting up profiles and setting up accounts in the “if you build it, they will come” spirit. But, it wasn’t long before our profiles and accounts seemed eerily similar to the online signposts of before. We had run at the digital space in a panic and forgot a major component: the community.

Thus, we entered the social period. The magical kingdom in which offline and online worked together, where strategies that were proven in one place were re-imagined in new ones. The focus now, instead of on the work we did, or on the tools we had, was on the people we could work with and serve. And most importantly, this is when we start to see the way our work is not only accomplished by us, but in tandem with the community.

Social Tools

The social period saw a more balanced weight across various kinds of media. This was when, as organizations and not just select staff, we recognized the value in collaboration across organizational departments as well as with our community. We also recognized that there were analog tools and technology tools, and that they may just go hand in hand. We continued to use the tools that emerged in the digital period, and continued adopting new tools; the difference was that we left the land-grabbing to early adopters. Now, we evaluated tools based on who was using them, and how. We looked at case studies that showed which tools were used and how, and especially to what end. We were also honest about how we used tools and organizations began making it public who was behind that wall – For example, a bio on Twitter might say “responding to your questions here are Amy and Claire” or a blog may include short bios or links to the staffers contributing.

Not only were we open to trying and learning, the social paradigm also included the emergence of toolkits – resources organizations created either to support community members taking on our mission and our work, or in the form of documentation for other organizations looking to replicate our efforts. At TechSoup, we’ve worked on a number of toolkits, including the Community Organizers Handbook where NetSquared Local organizers from around the world share their experiences and recommendations in the same place as organizational information and templates all to support knowledge sharing across the network, help new organizers get their groups established, and provide examples and resources to anyone else looking to build community whether they are connected with our program or not.

This is also the period when honest case studies take the forefront. Previously, we had examples to refer to during both the analog and digital periods, but the examples that were promoted were always the successful anomalies. The fundraising campaign that will probably never be replicated, the citizen engagement effort that relied on a whirlwind of perfect timing and serendipity. In the social period, we see case studies emerge about programs or campaigns that aren’t successful because we start to treat our use of technology as a shared success. For example, a recent website called AdmittingFailure.com highlights the examples of those opportunities where we can learn from what didn’t work.

Social Tactics

In the social period, we realized that not only do our tools focus on conversations and human connection, but our tactics should also be people-powered. Regardless of our cause, we can have activist-oriented calls to action, resources for individuals looking to support our work in their own way, and metrics for engagement not just hard numbers. The social period is a time when we start to relearn the separation between tactic and strategy. We put facebook back in it’s place as a tool, explain to our teams that we have a community engagement strategy that includes various kinds of community groups, various types of content, and will use multiple tools. The tactics are created based on those limited moving parts – overall strategy and goal, the audience and the content. We can stop saying that facebook is our strategy and start saying that facebook is one part of our engagement strategy. What are we doing there? Oh, we have a few key tactics: daily content, conversation starters, and highlighting community members.

Social Strategies

And what are those strategies? In the social paradigm, we recognize the need for both online and offline to be part of our work. Our strategies are focused on clear goals and metrics. We use all of our technology – from the website, to the database, to facebook – to evaluate our efforts, monitor the community, and create data-driven strategies. With metrics that cover both traditional measurement to real engagement – from the number of people that receive our emails, to the number of people that take action in emails related to congress, from the number of events we hosted in a year, to the number of events about our cause that were hosted by anyone in a year – being data-driven means we ensure our strategies are successful because we can make decisions based on what the community tells us.

In the social space, we operate with the understanding that, just like the community, a strategy can also change. We build in evaluation and communication check-points to the way we engage with our community, in the same way we do to our overall strategy. For example, we may ask our enewsletter list or our Twitter followers what we don’t talk about that they wish we would, or what’s really interesting to them lately. In the same way, we create flexible strategies so that if we launch a program and no one responds, we can iterate and change it, and continue to move forward.

The social paradigm period is the one we are in now. We have a lot that we can still improve and we aren’t yet ready to emerge into the next period, though, we can see it around the corner. Today, the sessions will focus on using tools, identifying tactics, and creating strategies for engaging with your community and successfully operating in the social paradigm – that includes creating integration between on and offline, that means operating in a networked way. But, I want to talk a bit about where we can go from here. And I hope that some of these principles and ideas, though maybe just beyond where your organization is now, will help you navigate the distance between now and what’s ahead.

Holistic Paradigm

Next up: the holistic paradigm. For those that can’t tell, this is a picture of a clock on the face of a coffee maker. The holistic period represents not just a balance, but an integration of technology with the way we work. This means that the data-driven approach emerging in the social period is strengthened – we don’t just monitor and measure data, but now we let our community do so, too. For example, why track how many events are taking place for our own reporting only? We can keep the numbers public both for how many events, but also for how many attendees; is it a fundraising event? Show how much money is being raised! Is it an event to get out the vote? Show how many people are pledging to participate!

From another perspective, there’s the side of our data that translates into APIs, maps, and info graphics. In the holistic paradigm, we recognize the value we create for ourselves by putting our data into an API so that we can use and reuse it all we want, and recognize that doing it in an open way like this means we create value for the rest of the network by giving them access to our hard work. For example, the Social Actions API pulls together volunteer opportunities and social actions from over 60 different sources – that way we can all re-purpose calls to action from across the web. We will have maps telling the stories of our impact for us (for examples of this already in use, check out google earth’s nonprofit stories). We will leverage the real time Web so that we know what’s going on, and our community can take action with us.

Holistic Tools

In the holistic paradigm, we have an opportunity as organizations to both create and support the creation of the tools we need. Remember the digital period, way back in time, when any tool that someone launched – be it for profit, for a lot of profit, or for compromise – was a tool we felt obligated to register for, create a profile on, and otherwise try to adopt? That was a silly time. If, as organizations using tools and often investing a whole lot of time, money, and energy (not to mention social clout) into, we should be collaborating to call for the tools we want, and then use them. I’ve talked before about a time when we are open about the actions, transactions, and functionality we want and outline it clearly for vendors or technologists to build, operating with the agreement that if we call for it, and it is built, that we will use it, and going forward we will continue to have influence in the direction it evolves. There is no reason we should, as an entire sector, have to change the way we operate in order to use a database. In a holistic paradigm, organizations and end users will work together with technologists and vendors to create and maintain tools that help us all meet our mission.

Holistic Tactics

In the holistic paradigm our tactics also evolve to be framed in terms larger than they were before and open for use by more than just our own staff. In a holistic paradigm, our programs and services and even our fundraising are community driven. This means not only do we monitor and measure data as we started doing in the social period, but we also listen to our community, and listen for action. We ask what we can do, we ask about what is already being done, and we ask how we can work together. Being community-driven, like data-driven, relies on the permission and support to take action based on what we learn. If we take the time to be an active part of our community and hear about the issues and opportunities our organization’s programs or services could address, yet aren’t given the authority to start working on addressing those issues or options, then we lose our ground and our momentum.

In a holistic paradigm, we also recognize the tactical differences between working with our community and working beyond that. In the social period, we began exploring the network – mapping it, evaluating it, testing it. We ask for our supporters to spread our message to their communities, tapping into the network for help. Our communications changed, the words we used changed, the calls to action changed all to try to engage the network. The difference between a community and a network is that you can know your community and be part of your community in a much more real, tangible, and even permanent way. The network is all those that are connected to you through the community. Many of the nodes and groups you don’t know and maybe not even share similar goals. The network is great for responding in crisis or times of needs, the network is also great for distributing opportunities to support a large movement or cause. But with day to day communications, with strategic planning, with programs and services that improve our city and our state and eventually our world, we focus on our community. We know they are invested, we know what they care about, and we know we can work together.

There’s a similar difference between another tact that emerged in the social paradigm period: crowd-sourcing. How many people here have heard of crowdsourcing? How many have tried it? Okay, how many here have tried community sourcing? The difference, like with communications, is that when you launch a crowd-sourcing contest or campaign, you are trying to get ideas or submissions from the network, the crowd – from people or organizations you don’t know. Community-sourcing is when you launch a contest or campaign to your community. You can assume more about shared context, you can also expect a higher investment in the outcome. Lastly, you can also expect higher collaboration over competition. For example, the NetSquared Challenges have tapped into the global NetSquared and TechSoup global community, created opportunities for Project teams to not just get visibility for their work and possibly win cash to fund development, but find others working on similar technologies or on similar goals and join together to code faster, grow wider, or otherwise collaborate instead of compete.

Holistic Strategies

In the holistic period, we will definitely see strategies evolve. If the changing environment of our tools and tactics are any indication, then our strategies are in for a major shift. Not only can we move from openly sharing what works and what doesn’t, something that we saw in the social period, but can build on that sharing to ensure our goals create frameworks for collaboration and significant impact.  For example, this means strategies that are focused not on feeding the homeless in our city, but on ending homelessness in our city. By evolving our goals in this way, we create opportunities for other organizations, other service providers, as well as community members to collaborate with us toward actual change.

The Sweet Spot

Yesterday, I had the chance to run a workshop with the leadership institute graduates. We played a round of the Social by Social game and it relies on this notion of the sweet spot. Regardless of what our organization does, we have a certain set of goals. Our community, similarly, has goals. But they aren’t the same. They probably shouldn’t be the same! There are aspects of our work that the community doesn’t really care about or at least doesn’t care to be involved with. And the same is true for all that the community wants – some parts of it we just don’t want to get involved in. For example, maybe our community is rallying behind a specific politician, and we are working towards a piece of legislation. We aren’t going to join with each other on these specific goals – but bettering our state, well that’s the sweet spot. The sweet spot is where our goals overlap. And it’s the place where we can invest our time and our energy knowing that we are all rooting for the same end. Identifying the sweet spot is an integral part of community mapping and engagement planning. Knowing the areas that you and your community both care about can turn your campaigns, your communication and your engagement efforts into successful community-driven work.

Roles

When working with community groups and organizations on operating in a more holistic way, I often get asked about the changing roles or skills that they need to think about. Many of these things may already be part of your organization and it’s just a matter of identifying the skills and assets already in your staff but maybe just not tapped into yet. Some roles and skills will be identified as the sector as a whole starts moving in this direction and we can more clearly see what’s needed. At this stage at least, to help get us into the transition, we need translators. That means translating or liaising between the organization and the community, as well as between technologists and end users, and even between community segments. We need leaders that are not our executive staff (sorry directors!) and leaders who are not within the organization; the more people who step up into leadership roles and take responsibility for real impact then the more legitimacy we have as an entire community towards building a movement and creating the change we want. We also need catalysts. Whether they are vendors like CauseVox, openly asking for what the community needs in a fundraising tool and building towards the response, or they are individuals that take a photo or shoot a short video that they share with the world changing the conversation about an issue or an event.

Resources

But we need new resources, too. Shared, collective resources. How many people here can imagine sharing your database, even just to one person not in your organization? Well, what about a database that you could share just the names and emails and selected actions with the other organizations in your field who have pledged to work at the movement level along side you? That’s what groups like 1Sky, 350, and others fighting for change on the issues related to our climate did. That’s not to say that the world has your email address if you joined one of those organizations; but instead it let’s each organization know you’re already in the network and which organization you joined with so the rest don’t bother you with more emails and they can all work together to share petitions (and get much larger responses) and to share calls to action. We will need our technology resources and our knowledge resources to evolve in a holistic way as our tools, tactics and strategies do.

Paradigm Shift

Elevating our work from a single program in a single geographic area into a movement is going to require a lot of hard work and will definitely not be easy, especially for institutions that have existed since the analog period. Unfortunately, it’s not quite as clear cut as finish one and start the next.

If we’ve learned anything in this social period from looking at back at how we got here it’s that we need to remember that as strategies change, missions evolve, issues emerge, the role of technology remains as a tool. Technology is not what we build the strategy around, but what allows us to implement the strategy.

In a holistic approach, we are going to see a shift in even the way we operate, what an organization means, what a campaign looks like. Global campaigns may be ignited by an individual. Organizations can emerge from a successful campaign. Movements will be created by organizations putting goals ahead of branding. 350 is an excellent example: people around the world used a tag “350ppm” to start uniting their content whether it was blog posts or analysis or videos. That tag then became a rally point that brought people together and supported a community to emerge. As actions and energy built, an organization was formed. The community still led the way, though, from the local to the global level. And it wasn’t until this autumn that a fundraising appeal took place – the first time the movement had asked for money in the years it had been coordinating efforts around the world. 350 is a great example not just because of the organic and purpose-driven way in which it grew and eventually an organization was formed, but also for the idea that together, as a movement, we really are better, stronger, faster, louder. But, even a group like 350 will see change ahead as we move as a sector towards a holistic paradigm.

Starting the Shift

I know that was a weighty talk – with a lot of lofty forecasting. But, everything I said, I believe is at least an option for what is ahead. I also believe that if we do move to the holistic paradigm we will make much more lasting impact. So, before I close, I just want to share some of the things we can all do today to start moving the sector off the cliff, I mean, um, forward J

We learn much more and much faster when we openly ask questions. If you’re asking questions now, ask more of them. How can you help, what are others doing, what does your community need and want, where is there opportunity for collaboration?

In the social paradigm now, as I said earlier, we are creating toolkits and sharing resources. But, to move towards a holistic approach, you will need to share your whole toolbox with your community. If you have resources or access that you keep locked up, then there’s no way your community will be able to help you or carry that work for you.

You share stories of your impact so people can be inspired, they will give, and they will join you. You can share your data in the same way – data, especially when shared in full and put together can tell many stories.

It might sound silly, but striving to be replaced is a core element to working with your community and operating holistically. Sharing your toolbox and asking for opportunities to collaborate are precursors to handing over parts of the work to the community (whether it’s your organizations work or collectively held responsibility for change).

Focusing on shared goals means concentrating on the sweet spot – there’s a lot that can be achieved in that space.

I included the idea of letting others lead not as a reinforcement of the striving to be replaced idea as much as an opportunity to make the invitation explicit that you are invited to let go of the shiny object syndrome you came down with back in the digital period and feel confident following your community to the appropriate tools and supporting community members in asking questions and sharing ideas.

One more time, before I go, I’m going to say that we should focus on the community. I know, I’ve probably said it enough.

And lastly, seriously, ask for help. There is no better feeling than being the one that could help and you can extend that offer to your community, to colleagues, to other organizations.

I hope that by sharing these thoughts I can extend the invitation to all of you to join me in thinking about and starting to move us all closer to a paradigm and a way of working that matches our goals for creating a better world. If you have questions, ideas, additional examples or resources, please add them to the comments here for the benefit of others! Thank you.

Slides

Resources & Links

Organizations

• http://techsoup.org
• http://netsquared.org
• http://www.mncn.org/
• http://nten.org

Community Mapping and Planning

• http://amysampleward.org/2011/01/20/diy-community-engagement-metrics/
• https://amysampleward.org/2010/06/29/community-driven-social-impact-presentation-game/
• https://amysampleward.org/2010/03/14/crowdsourcing-community-vs-crowd/
• https://amysampleward.org/2010/07/21/designing-programs-to-build-community-case-study-with-charity-technology-trust/
• https://amysampleward.org/2009/08/06/online-community-building-gardening-vs-landscaping/
• https://amysampleward.org/2010/04/16/from-ning-to-causes-to-ideablob-why-we-need-a-new-way-of-building/

Primers and Publications

• http://socialbysocial.com
• http://thrivable.wagn.org/wagn/Book+listening

Location: Minneapolis, MN

Topic: Keynote

Description:  When it comes to nonprofit technology, successful strategy and implementation can mean the difference between staying current and getting left behind. Nonprofit leaders need to keep up with the constantly changing techcomm environment by remaining curious, flexible and ever able to adapt. As technology advances, the demand for personalization increases. At the same time, however, your messaging will likely reach a broader audience than ever before, leaving the question: What is the balance between individualization and generalization? This year’s Nonprofit Technology and Communications Conference will delve into how to design the right eStrategy in today’s iWorld to build an engaged audience for your nonprofit. At the conference, you’ll have no shortage of opportunities to learn, network, share, and have some fun. You will walk away with real tools and ideas to keep your nonprofit nimble and resilient moving forward.

Related Links:

• Conference website
• Registration
• MCMN
• Slides
• Keynote address

Last month, Joe Solomon shared on the NetSquared Blog what he hopes is our reflection on 2011 a year from now, focused on a year full of empowering and harnessing organizers. I wanted to take a few minutes today to share my 3 Goals for 2011 – I’d love to hear what others you’d add to the list!

How can we build a better sector? 3 Goals for 2011

For me, for you, for all of our organizations; and for the sake of this world we are trying to improve!

Please note, and this is key, that these are goals for the people operating in this space. As much as we love technology, it isn’t anything without people creating it, using it, changing it, and evolving it.

Find and talk to others using the same tools

We can learn a whole lot from each other. Seriously.

Coming together to talk about tools with others who use them can also mean a louder, more unified voice in requesting changes to those tools. When one organization says they want the software or platform to work differently, it’s a nice feautre request email that may even get a “thank you for the input” message in response. But when hundreds or more organizations can all say they want a change, the message is so much louder!

Share failure and success

This isn’t a new idea. Many people have talked about how we need to, and many have even shared how they have failed, and how they’ve succeeded. But I hope we can go deeper both in what we share and how we listen. When we are talking to others about our work, our projects, campaigns or tools, what if we shared more of the “why we did it” and “how we made it happen” instead of which tools, and which messages? What if we moved from sharing which tools, tactics or campaigns were “fails” or success to a focus on sharing which strategies worked or didn’t work.

Put questions before answers

Instead of leading with answers, let’s start focusing on the questions we can ask each other, ask of funders, ask of our communities, ask of ourselves. There’s great opportunity to learn and collaborate when we approach conversations with the lens of discovering what really worked, what is really possible, and where our impact is needed. And then if we keep a mission-critical focus, wow: Big things are possible!

What do you think about those goals? What are the goals you have for funneling your frustrations into real action?

—–

I recently posted about Jumo with reflections, notes from my experience using the new platform, and questions – this post has also generated a great deal of valuable conversation in the comments (over 70 thoughtful comments so far). One response on twitter from my great friend and colleague, Joe Solomon, has stuck with me and kept me thinking: “You can’t create new game-changing start-ups for social change anymore. You have to co-create them.” And I really couldn’t agree more!

3 Core Elements to Co-Creation for Change

Co-creation is, like many other things, a word rising in standing on the buzzword list. In this case, for this conversation, co-creation is used generally to touch on issues of access and engagement, and collaboration. In each element below, it’s framed slightly differently to match the context, but is always centered on the need, as Joe shared above, to operate outside of silos.

I’ve tried to keep the 3 Elements below to brief conversation starters as I think they all could go on into lengthy pieces on their own. I hope you’ll join the conversation with your feedback and comments about each one, and share additional elements and reflections on co-creation!

On & Offline Engagement

Online is great for organizing. Whether you’re using social networks, or other shared spaces online, the social web is where you can find others, figure out the actions you want to take, spread news and information, promote the actions, and even stream media/data while taking the action. But the action, the real social change, is offline. There’s a great post on the Case Foundation blog that covers some great examples and shares, “Although activism may not look the same, it’s no question from these examples that social media and social networks can be used to motivate the masses into action, whether it be physical or monetary.”

The key is making the connection.

First, ensuring that there are opportunities to engage and participate both on and offline (especially in the promoting and sharing) can increase participation and ultimately feet in the streets. Most organizations, campaigns, and even companies get this and are trying to make toolkits, letters, and even posters than be shared at events or via Twitter, wherever people are.

Secondly, co-creation of a new organization, a new campaign, or a new tool can’t happen if the links between on and offline aren’t clear – if someone shows up in person to an event or planning meeting, they need to know where they can continue engaging online before the next offline event takes place. And the same goes for those who may be following or actively inputting to your work via the web – they should know how to join you, or join with other members, offline to continue building.

For & Non Profit Inclusion

Making social change is not reliant on a tax exempt status. Platforms that put change in front of donations enable co-creation of both impact and of other new organizations or tools.  Co-creation, at least in my opinion, works best when there’s possibility for all kinds of organizations, groups or individuals to collaborate; and, likewise, when there are options for different funding streams, even when funding isn’t defined by $.

When we (those working in the nonprofit sector) presuppose that only those with the “nonprofit” status are eligible for investing in a better future, we do all of our communities a disservice. If we really want to change the world, and if we believe there are some for-profit groups that need to change in order for our vision of the future to be realized, then let’s invite them to the table, to take a stake in change, and to co-create a path towards that vision.

Organization & Individual Changemakers

Co-creating new tools, campaigns, organizations or opportunities for social change requires certain opportunities: to be able to form teams, a place/way to showcase ideas, creating a shared vision, and opportunity to communicate across the group/network. Having an organization isn’t a requirement for participation in any of those. It should not matter whether I work for a nonprofit, or if I work at all.  If I have an idea to change the world, I should be just as welcome and have equal access to the spaces where I can share the idea and find others to help me make it come to life.

But, that’s just what I think – how do you feel?  Looking forward to your ideas!